WHO ORDERED RAJM?
There is consensus of the followers of the THREE religions —Islam, Judaism and Christ i- anity — that the Promulgator of the Law of
stoning adulterers to death is Allah Azza Wa Jal. The Tauraah and the Injeel corroborate the Shariah of Muhammadur Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in the Law of Rajm.
Kuffaar and Muslims alike are agreed that Rajm was ordered by Allah Ta’ala. This command ex- ists to this day in the scriptures of the Yahood and Nasaaraa.
BARBARIC?
If Rajm is ‘barbaric’, the charge is directed by the accusers to Allah Azza Wa Jal. The attempt to shift the ‘blame’ of Rajm to the ‘Maulanas’ of the Indo-Pak subcontinent is to display rational bankruptcy.
APPEASEMENT
The insane desire of the modernist heretics and atheists to appease their western intellectual masters does not detract from the conclusively proven truth that Rajm is by the Command of Allah Azza Wa Jal.
The recent feverish attempts by modernists to negate the Islamic validity o f Rajm (Stoning the death for adultery ) , ensuing in the wake of the adverse kuffaar media publicity centering around th e Rajm sentence decreed by a Nigerian Shariah court, was m o- tivated solely by the mad desire to placate their western intell e c- tual masters who were all screaming from the rooftops tha t Rajm is barbaric.
For the sake of appeasing the western masters, th e modernist zi ndeeqs, mulhids and munaafiqs masquerading as Muslims, e m barked on their usual exercises of baseless interpretation of the Qur'aan and flagrant rejection of the sacred Ahaadith of R a- sulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). They have failed to rea l- ize, in fact, they cannot be concerned, that rejection of the Ahaadith is tantamount to rejection of the Qur'aan. Without the A h aadith, there is no Qur'aan, no Islam.
The mental derangement of some of these modernists has c o n- strained them to label the Ahaadit h — all the Ahaadit h — of Nab i - e -Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) an ‘evil spirit'. There can be no doubt in the kufr of these agents of shaitaan.
Since unwary Muslims and those who lack sound Deeni Ilm have been thrown into doubt by these evil modernists, a need d e- veloped to respond to the drivel and kufr which the ignoramuses have presented in substantiation of their claim tha t Rajm is not an Islamic punishment. By such denial they hoped to curry f a- vour with the western kuffaar. They have chosen to abase th e m- selves to the West by depicting Islam in a mould which a s- suages the palates of the kuffaar. In this exercise they conspi c u- ously exposed themselves by revealing the kufr hidden in their hearts. Emergence from the restrictive confines of the Shar'iah to enter into the domain of unbridled interpretation which is b e- yond the bounds of the principles of the Shariah gives rise to kufr. This is precisely what the modernist deniers o f Rajm are guilty of.
In the intense desire to appease the western kuffaar, Munaafiqeen (Hypocrites) hibernating in the folds of the U m- mah, were compelled by the Nigerian episode to reveal their true colours o f nifaaq (hypocrisy) by overtly decrying the Rajm c o m- mand of Allah Ta'ala. The western intellectual masters had i n- doctrinated these hypocrites during their secular educational p e- riod with the atheist cult of ‘enlightment' and liberalism. It is this cult of ‘enlightened' kufr which has constrained th e m o d- er nist munaafiqeen to flagrantly brand the Law of Allah Ta'ala as being ‘barbaric'. In so doing, they were loyally and dutifully mimicking and aping their masters from whom they have inhe r- ited the mental disease of intellectual paralysis.
As an imperative corollary of this mental aberration, the brains of the mod ernist munaafiqeen operate under extreme duress in the straitjacket of western kuffaar mentalism. It is this chronic mental disease which compels them to eternally and baselessly interpret th e Ahkaa m of Allah Ta'ala to accord His Immutable Shariah accommod a tion within the confines of the concepts of life fabricated by the western kuffaar. But this accommodation can be effected only at the expense of jettisoning Imaan right out from the heart. Kuffaar can be placated only by means of kufr. Hence, the product of any interpretation offered by th e moder n- ist munaafiqeen has to necessarily be kufr.
The pleasure of the kuffaar cannot be attained without submi s- sion to kufr. Thus the Qur'aan Majeed warning the Mu'mineen, states :
“Never will the Yahood and Nasaaraa be pleased with you as long as you do not follow their cult.”
But following the cult and culture of the kuffaar leads inevitably to kufr an d everlasting disaster, loss and failure. Sounding this Warning, the Qur'aan Majeed says:
“O People of Imaan! If you follow those who have e m braced kufr, they will turn you on your heels (to abandon Islam). You will then become the (everlasting) losers (in this world and the Aakhirah). (Don't appease them because) in actual fact, Allah i s your Friend (and Protector), and He is the best of helpers.”
THE NIGERIAN EPISODE
When the Nigerian Shariah Court handed down the sentence of Rajm the world of the k uffaar braying like asses shouted that the sentence was 'barbaric'. In the noise they kicked up, there is nothing of surprise. This reaction was entirely expected. It is i n- deed a futile exercise to even comment on the reaction of aliens. But there is a need to expose th e munaafiqeen who masquerade as Muslims. From within the fold they feverishly labour to u n- de r mine Islam. Their strategy for achieving this nefarious goal is to ostensibly present Qur'aanic proof in substantiation of the cries of the western critics of Islam.
The kuffaar claim that the Immutable Law o f Rajm is 'barbaric'. It logically devolve s on their vassals, namely, the modernist munaafiqqen, to fabricate ‘enlightened' interpretation of the Qur'aan to confirm the decree of ‘barbarism' which the enemies of Islam have levelled against the Law of Allah Ta'ala.
In the desperate attempt to denounce and refute Rajm th e m o d- ernist munaafiqeen have surfaced with two of the flimsiest a r- gu ment s — arguments devoid of the slightest vestige of Shar'i substance. These two ridiculous grounds advanced to corrob o- rate the ‘enlightened' view of the aliens are:
(1 ) Rajm is barbaric, hence it cannot be a law of Islam
(2 ) There is no Qur'aanic subst a ntion fo r Rajm.
These are two stupidities, the fallacy of which should be c o n- spicuous to every Muslim who had enjoyed a basic Madrasah ta'leem at primary level. There is absolutely no valid ground for the refutation o f Rajm . In fact, th e modernist munaafiqeen l a n- guishing in intellectual paralysis have been unable to add even a third stupidity in their attempt to justify their kufr denial of a Shar' i Huk m which is based on the highest category of Shar'i evidence, viz. , Ahaadith Mutawaatarah , which have the force of Qur'aanic aayaat.
Before presenting the evidence of the Shariah to conclusively substantiate the validity and immutability o f Allah's Law o f Rajm, we shall examine and demolish the arguments of the m o d- ernist munaafiqee n — their arguments which are in fact devoid of any Shar'i substance.
‘BARBARIC'
Their first flimsy argumen t which may have deceived people of shallow understanding and those who lack in basic or primary Madrasah education, is the charge of ‘barbarism' which the k u f- faar level at Islam. Since the west believes that the punishment of Rajm is ‘barbaric', it has become imperative for their vassals whose intellectual vessels are deranged by the mental slaver y o f their educational indoctrination, to echo the same theme.
In taking up the defence of the kuffaar on this issue, th e moder n- ist munaafiqeen are tacitly proclaiming that Allah Azza Wa Jal and Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) have commanded an act of barbaris m — Nauthubillaah ! Since there is not the slightest loophole for assaulting the validity of the Law o f Rajm , the lo g i- cal conclusion in terms of the view propounded by th e modernis t munaafiqeen is that the entire Penal Code of Islam is barbaric.
In fact, there is no need for anyone to arrive at this conclusion by deduction because the western kuffaar do believe and have made no secret of it that th e Hudood (Prescribed Punishments) as well a s Ta'zeer (Discretionary Punishment) of Islam are ba r- baric. In fact, their hatred for Islam is not restricted to criticism of the Islamic Penal System. They direct their invective against even the loftiest concept of Monothiesm, i.e.the doctrine of Tau heed , which inspite of its uncompromising stand of Allah's Unity and the total denunciation and rejection of the slightest vestige of idolatry, even photograph s— they brand this doctrine o f Tauheed, idolatry. The Qur'aan Majeed has stated the truth:
“Verily, hatred (for Islam and Muslims) has spewed from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is worse.”
Therefore, by aligning themselves with the kuffaar on the issue o f Rajm , th e modernist munaafiqee n im ply their concurrence as far as all Shar'i punishments are concerned. The further implic a- tion is their total rejection o f th e Islam which was presented, i n- terpretated and taught by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi was a l- lam) and his noble Sahaabah.
There is no intelligent reason for restricting the notion of 'barbarism' to the punishment t o Rajm . While the kuffaar c o n- ception of ‘barbarism' of Islamic punishments and its penal code is uniform, th e modernist munaafiqeen and othe r m u l- hideen are in a quandary. They are at a loss in their selection. Which punishment of the Shariah is 'barbaric' and which is 'humane'? In the view of the kuffaar every Shar'i punishment is 'barbaric'. Th e modernist mulhids and zindeeq s are at pains to convince Muslims and the kuffaar critics that the Islamic p u n- i sh ment for adultery is 100 lashes, no t Rajm. Since the 100 lashes are stated by a Qur'aanic aayat too explicit and emphatic for interpretation and rejection, at least at this stage in the pro- gress towards kufr, they have no alternative other than to concur with the 100 las h Hadd. But according to the very sam e sh a- yaateen who brand Rajm as barbaric, the 100 las h Had d is also barbaric. Their mental quandary and frustration have thus b e- come grounded in incongruity and terrible confusion on this score.
The Qur'aan decrees a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye , 10 0 lashes for fornication committed by unmarried persons, cutting the hands of thieves, impaling dacoits and cutting off thei r hands and feet at opposite sides, etc. None of these punishments is a c- ceptable to the kuffaar since all thes e Hudood are ‘barbaric' in the conception of the ‘enlightened' kuffaar who have sanctified and legalized infanticide, homosexuality, lesbianism, prosti t u- tion and other immoral crimes of debauchery.
While th e modernist munaafiqee n have hitherto been c o n- strained to maintain silence on the ‘barbarism' of the aforem e n- tioned constituents of Islam's Penal Code on account of explicit Qur'aanic references, they believe that they have sufficient scope for manouvreing on at least th e Rajm question to soothe and placate their western intellectual and cultural masters. This false belief based on thei r nifaaq has now been overtly pro-claimed because there is no explicit reference t o Rajm in the Qur'aan Majeed. But in the attempt to trade their belief of kufr (viz. the refutation o f Rajm ) , th e modernist munaafiqee n have no option other than to bare thei r kuf r an d nifaaq by denying t he validity of the ordinances and teachings of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). In so doing they are in diametric confli ct with the Qur'aan which they cite as the Book in which they believe. But every Muslim of true Imaan can understand the worth o f their claim of belief in the Qur'aan.
In rejecting the validity o f Rajm , the logical consequence is so glaring that it is in c orrect to say that thes e modernist munaafiqeen imply or indirectly reject the Qur'aan. The only conclusion is that they directly reject the Qur'aan. If, for ex a m- ple, a zindee q or a munaafi q claims that Islam does not have as its fundamental belief performance of Five Salaat daily and the n he backs up his kufr by claiming that there is no Qur'aanic ref e r- ence for this practice, we shall not be in error for declaring that this criminal has overtly, directly and outrightly rejecte d th e Qur'aan. It is the Qur'aan which commands obedience to Ra s u- lullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The Qur'aan is replete with such commands to follow and obey the Nabi of Allah Ta'ala. I n- sha'Allah, this angle will be presented later when discussing the second baseless argument of th e modernist munaafiqeen.
Let us revert to their claim tha t Rajm is ‘barbaric' The very peo- ple who put up a howl against Islam's Penal Code, freely, fl a- grantly and without the slightest pang of conscience subject th o usands of civilians to brutal bombing from the skies. People who are not involved in hostilitie s — men, women, children, the old , the sic k — hospitals and orphanages, are all pummeled and brutalized with thousands of tons of bombs, poisonous and other sophisticated incendiary devices which not only kill, but horr i- bly maim, deform and disfigure human beings. But this is not
barbaric!!!
The brutal torture camps in Guantama Bay, the numerous pr i s- ons of torture operated by kuffaar governments in which cou n t- less thousands are hideously and horribly subjected to the most inhuman types of physical torture, the punishment of horrible hangings, the electric chair and death by poison are all suppo s- edly humane acts which are no secrets. In the conception of the kuffaar these acts of torture and death are ‘humane' while in t h e understanding of Muslims all these acts are truly barbaric.
While execution with the sword is the most humane form of kil l- ing ordained by Allah Ta'ala, it is ‘barbaric' in the western c o n- ception. From these few examples it should be clear that an act which is barbaric to kuffaar is valid and humane to Muslims and vice versa.
In view of the Penal Code of Islam being divine, being the pro d- uct o f Wahi (Revelation) from Allah Ta'ala, it is the best and the most humane system. On the contrary, the system of punishment of the kuffaar is the product of the human mind, hence it cannot be termed humane in comparison to the Divine Code. The charge of barbarism rebounds directly on the very people who level it against Islam.
It is quite obvious that there is no uni f orm definition fo r the term 'barbaric ' nor does the word have the same meaning for people of different cultures. Inspite of the differences of concepts, M u s- lims can claim with emphasis that the Islamic system is best since it is the Code revealed by Allah Ta'ala and was imp l e- mented by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Any Muslim who denies this reality has the obligation of pr o- d u c ing his Shar'i evidence, not the figments of his opinion and instincts which have been corrupted by kuffaar indoctrination and culture. In the words of the Qur'aan : “Bring forth your proof if indeed you are truthful.” So far, not a single one of th e modernist munaafiqeen has surfaced with Shar'i evidence to bolster the kuffaar claim which the miscreants in our midst are echoing and mimicking. They simply bandy figments of their opinion which cannot be taken seriously and which definitely have no semblance whatsoever with what could be termed e v i- dence of the Shariah.
THEIR ATTITUDE
It is not difficult to fathom the reason for the the attitude of the modernist munaafiqeen. Years of indoctrination in the edu c a- tional institutions of the western kuffaar have impregnated their hearts, with sceptism, agnosticism, hereticism and hypocris y — kufr and nifaaq. Like Siamese twins, their brains have become conjoined with the brains of their intellectual masters. They are therefore wholly incapable of independent and rational thinking. Their mental procedures are inextricably interwoven with the conceptual attitudes of the so- called enlightened western k u f- faar. But at the same time the pressure of the society in which they thrive does not permit them to proclaim their hidden ide o l- ogy acquired from the tutors of kufr. They thus profess th e m- selves to be Muslims while they are immersed in a cauldron of kufr.
In this mental imbroligio in which they happen to discover th e m selves, they feel obliged to satisfy irreconcilable opp o- site s — Muslims and Kuffaar. The attempt to placate both groups is motivated by worldly an d nafsaani aims. There is no th ing of altruism in the stupid, ridiculous and impossible e n- deavour to tread two divergent paths at the same time.
When there is absolutely no latitude for mental gymnastics and manouvreing on account of explicit evidence or entrenched a c-ceptance by the community, th e munaafiqeen exercise restraint and sulk in silence because of their inability to overtly support their intellectual masters. Thus, on the issue of cutting off the hand of the thief, th e modernist munaafiqeen are compelled to suffer in silence and feel that at least at this juncture in history, they may not join the chorus which dins into the ears th e charge of ‘barbarism' because even the Muslim in the street knows what the Qur'aan Majeed declares most explicitly on this is s ue.
However, on the issue of Rajm they have become audacious and openly denounce this immutable law of Allah Ta'ala because there is no explicit Qur'aanic textual reference. This point will, Insha'Allah, be discussed later.
The Islamic system o f Thabah (Slaughtering) is 'barbaric' to the west, but to us it is the most humane system. The kuffaar s y s- tems of killing animals such as shocking, pithing, shooting, scalding, hammering, etc., are barbaric according tp Islam, but 'humane' according to the kuffaar. Hanging and all other me t h- ods of execution are barbaric for Muslims, but humane for the kuffaar. Islam permits execution by only the sword and nothing else. For the kuffaar this is barbaric while for us it is humane.
The overt support which th e modernist munaafiqeen are offer i ng the kuffaar on the question o f Rajm is their agreement and a c- ce ptance of the charge of ‘barbarism' which has been hurled at Islam. But this charge does not negate the validity of the Law. It is not evidence to substantiate the claim tha t Rajm has not been ordained by Allah Azza Wa Jal. In order to dismiss the validi ty o f Rajm it is necessary for th e modernist munaafiqeen to s u b- st a n tiate their claim with proofs of the Shariah. Their personal ideas, attitudes, interpretation and opinion are not evidence of the Shariah.
Furthermore, it is essential for sustaining the charge of barb a-rism to prove that at no stage in the world's history did Allah Ta'ala ordai n Rajm for fornicators. The charge o f Rajm being ‘barbaric' falls flat and has absolutely no substance if at any time in man's histor y Rajm had been a Divine Punishment. Any claim of barbarism would then be tantamount to saying that A l- lah Ta'ala Himself is ‘barbaric ' — Nauthubillaah ! Insha'Allah, we shall revert to this point later.
Suffice to observe here that besides the charge of barbarism b e- ing false, and even if we had to momentarily assume that in the understanding of human beings it is 'barbaric', then too, it is not a ground for the averment that there is n o Rajm in Islam. Should it be argued that ritual ablutions (wudhu) five times a d a y and Salaat five times a day are an excessive imposition and burden, hence it is not a tenet of Islam, then everyone will unde r stand the absurdity of this line of argument and the falsity of the claim. Similarly, the argument tha t Rajm is not Islamic bec a use it is ‘barbaric' is absurd, emotional and irrational even if it is momentarily assumed that it is 'barbaric'.
The summary of our negation of first semblance of an argument presented by the followers of the 'enlightened' kuffaar is:
(1 ) There is no con s ensus of mankind on the definition and conception of barbarism.
(2 ) Even if there is unanimity on the conception or meaning of barbarism, it is not a ground for refuting a properly s u b- stantiated Law of Allah Ta'ala. A refutation has to be based on facts and evidence, not on emotional attitudes.
(3 ) The Ummah of Is l am rejects with contempt the charge that Rajm is barbaric.
(4 ) The aim of the ant i - Rajm protagonists is nothing but to a p- pease the kuffaar with apologies and personal opinion pr e- sented by way of baseless interpretation.
(5 ) The claim tha t Rajm is not an Islamic injunction is kufr which expels such a believer from the fold of Islam.
(6 ) Numerous practices, laws and rituals of both western k u f- faar and eastern kuffaar despite their acceptance, are r e- garded as barbaric by Islam.
(7 ) The exercise to appease the ‘enlightened' west is the d i- rect consequence of the kuffaar educational system which breeds kufr i n Aqaai d (Beliefs) and immodesty in Akhlaaq
(moral chara c ter).
The next claim which they posit as an argument in negation of
Rajm i s that the Qur'aan is silent in this regard. The Shariah of Islam is Immutable. This Shariah is the product o f Wah i (Divine Re v elation). It is not the consequence of man's opinion. Affirming this transcendental Truth, the Qur'aan M a- jeed proclaims:
“Then, We established you on a Shariah. Therefore, follow it, and do not follow the vain d esires of those who do not know. ”
This Aayat of the Qur'aan confirms that th e Shariah is Divin e and Immutable. That the Qur'aan is the Fountainhead of this D i- vine Shariah is an incontestable axiomatic fact stemming from the irrefutable Qur'aanic assertion that Allah Ta'ala handed I s- lam to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah in the Completed and Perfected Form which tolerates no change, no diversion and no interpretation which conflicts with the fu n- da mental basis of the Shariah's Immutability due to its Divine origin. Beautifully and emphatically expressing this fact of I s- lam, the Qur'aan declares:
“This Day have I (Allah) perfected for you your Deen, and (on this Day) have I completed for you My Ni'mat (Bounty), and I have chosen for you Islam as your Deen.”
Another axiomatic fact arising from the claim that Islam has been divinely completed, perfected and chosen for the Ummah until the Day of Qiyaamah, is the sustainment and endurance of its authenticity throughout the ages, from its inception until the time of the world's demise is ushered in with the disappearance of the last Muslim who recites the Name of Allah Ta'ala. C o n- firming this reality, the Qur'aan Shareef states:
“Verily, We have revealed the Thikr and, verily, W e are its Protectors.”
“They (the kuffaar and munaafiqeen) intend to extinguish the Noor (Shariah) of Allah, but Allah will complete His Noor even though the kaafiroon abhor it.”
Further elucidating the Divine Protection decreed for Islam, R a- sulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:
“This Knowledge (of the Deen) will remain by the Pious of every generation. They will eliminate from it the interpolation of the deviates, the falsehood of the people of baatil, and the baseless interpre t -tationof the ignoramuses.” (Mishkaat)
Thus, the assurance of the Immutability of the Shariah is given by the Qur'aan and by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) further added that the noblest of ages are th e Khairul Quroo n — the Age of the Sah a a- bah, the Age of the Taabieen and the Age of the Tab - e - Taabieen. It was in this glorious epoch of Islam which adjoined the Age o f Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) that all the illustrious Authorities of Islam — the Fuqaha, Muhadditheen and Mufassiree n — had flourished. It isn inconceivable that I s- lam had been distorted, mutilated and interpolated beyond re c- og nition by the very first generations of Islam for whose reliab i l- ity and uprighteousness Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Qur'aan Majeed testifies.
The Shariah as it existed du r ing the era o f Khairul Quroon was the perfect and complete Shariah which Allah Ta'ala speaks of in the Qur'aan. From this we understand that the principle of a u- thenticity of any act, tenet or injunction is its existence and a c- ceptance by the illustrious Authorities of Islam during the Khairul Quroo n era. It is perfidious and kufr to claim that an injunction which the Sahaabah, the Taabieen and Tab - e - Taabiheen upheld is baseless and a fabrication of the ‘Maulanas' of the I ndo - Pak subcontinent. This is a notorious crutch of the Ah l - e - Baatil in general in the South African scenario of mis in- ter pretation by the deviates, heretics, skeptics an d modernis t munaafiqeen.
To the best of the world's knowledge, the era of the “ Maulanas ” of the Indo - Pak su b- continent had not yet dawned during the Khairul Quroon epoch. The era of the “Maulanas” began more than 11 centuries after th e Khairul Quroon. Thus, the underm e n- tioned claim made by on e munaafi q an d murtad d so - called sheikh in appeasement of his western kuffaar masters, is ma n i- fest drivel displaying th e jahaala t of the lost soul who asserts in his exposition o f Jahaalat : “If you, the re ader, wish to find peace of mind and certainty of knowledge on this question, then come back to Allah's pur e unadulterated word. Only the Holy Quran is absolutely free of vexing, infuriating contradictions, whereas th e hadith (on which the “maulanas” base all their so - called “arguments” in favour of stoning is full of elisions (sic), evasions and absurdities. May Allah save our souls from being entangled with the asphyxiating incubus of Hadith. The solution to ALL our problems lies ONLY in the Quran.” Before we proceed to demolish the muck and the kufr which the zindee q has gorged out here, it is necessary to furnish the defin i- tion of the wor d ‘incubus' to enable readers to gain an insight into the mindset of this evil ‘sheikh'. The dictionaries definin g incubus , say:
An evil spirit said to descend on people while they sleep and to have sexual intercourse with women. ”
This is the vile epithet which the evil ‘sheikh' has coined for the sacred words of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayh i wasallam ) — words which the Qur'aan describe as follows:
“He (Muhammad) does not speak of vain desire. It (his Hadith) is nothing but Wahi which is revealed (from Allah).”
The Hadith which is part of Divine Revelatio n except that it does not form part of the Qur'aanic text, is depicted by the vile 'sheikh' a s “an evil (satanic) spirit which po ssesses women an d indulges in sexual intercourse with them. ” Can there be any doubt in the kufr of this man. The entire edifice of Hadith which represents the knowledge and the Deen which Allah Ta'ala i n- spired into the heart of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is labeled a n incubus by the miserable soul in his satanic ende a v- our to negat e Rajm in pursuance of the objective of appeasing the kuffaar masters.
Indeed, this unfortunate ‘sheikh' has scraped the very bottom of the barrel of kufr. One cannot descend further into the pit of kufr than this evil ‘sheikh' who has branded the ‘Revelation from A l- lah' to be an incubus. Th e ‘Wahi ' which Allah Ta'ala inspired into th e mubaarak heart of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi was a l-lam) and which emanated on his blessed tongue in the form we know as the Hadith is villified by th e murtad d with an expletive w i th which the sacred Hadit h (Wahi Ghair Matluw ) has hitherto never been maligned. Truly, this man is the evil spirit — the i n- c u bu s — the human shaitaan from which we are instructed in Surah Naas to seek refuge in Allah
“Say: I seek ref u ge in the Rabb of mankind, The King of mankind, The Deity of mankind from the evil of Waswaas, the Khann a as who whispers (his evil) into the breasts of peopl e — (the Khannaas or the shaitaan) from among j i nn and men.”
It is only a huma n khannaa s who will revile th e Wahi of Allah with the vile epithet, ‘incubus' and shamelessly say that the e n- tire sacred Edifice of Ahaadit h - e - Nabawi is an evil spirit which descends on people during the night, possesses women and i n- dulges in sexual intercourse with them. Intelligent discussion with such a khannaa s cannot be possible.
THE EVIDENCE
The evidence which we shall present, Insha'Allah, will be a c- claimed by all Muslims who lack bias in favour of kufr, kuffaar and their ‘enlightened' cults and cultures. The evidence will show i f Rajm came into effect with the advent of the era of the
“maulanas ” or had it existed in all previous Divine Shariahs as well as the Shariah of Muhammdur Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Remember that the era of the “maulanas” of the Indo -Pak subcontinent had dawned on makind only about 150 years ago while th e Khairul Quroon epoch was under the direct Spirit u al Shadow of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). It was the time of the Sahaabah and their illustrious Students. Let us a s k th e munaafiq sheikh : “Wa s Rajm ever effected in the
Indo - Pak subcontinent since the inception of the era of the “maulanas”? I s the Law o f Rajm discussed or not in ALL the Kutub of Islam — Fiqh, Hadith and Tafseer book s — which e x-isted from the earliest times of this Deen more than a mill e n- nium prior to the age of the “Maulanas” on the Indo - Pak s u b- co n tinent ? Who were the authors of all the thousands of Deeni kutub in the pre - maulana era, from the inception of Islam? Were Had h rat Umar, Hadhrat Uthmaan, Hadhrat Ali and the countless Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum) “maulanas” from India, Pa k i- stan and Bangladesh? Was Imaam Maalik, Imaam Abu Hanifah, Imaam Shaafi, Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal and the innumerable Fuqaha of th e se ages “maulanas” of the Indo -Pak subcontinent? Did all these Authorities of the Shariaht order and discus s Rajm or not? Do th e present no n - maulana Ulama all over the Muslim World believe in the validity o f Rajm or not? Let the miserable munaafiq and murt add “sheikh ” answer!
Is the Nigerian Qaadhi and the Nigerian Ulama of the Maalik i Mat h - ha b — those who handed down the sentenc e o f Rajm — products of the Daarul ulooms of the “maulanas” of the Indo - Pak subcontinent? Did they acquire the law of Rajm from t he “maulanas”? This will suffice to demonstrate the utter nonsense and trash th e munaafi q an d murtadd “sheikh ” has gorged out from his belly of kufr.
For the benefit of unwary Muslims , Rajm is expounded in the greatest detail in all the Books of Islam f rom the earliest time of this Deen.
(1 ) Hadhrat Umar Ibn Khattaab (radhiyallahu anhu) said:
“Verily, Allah Ta'ala sent Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) with the Haqq (Truth), and He revealed the K i- taab (Qur'aan) to him. Among the (aayaat) which Alla h had revealed to him was the aayat of Rajm. I recited it, u n- derstood it and memorized it. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) executed Rajm, and we (the Sahaabah) after him executed Rajm. I fear that due to the long dur a- tion of time on people they may say: ‘We do not find Rajm in the Kitaab of Allah.' Thus, they will go astray by aba n- doning an injunction which Allah Ta'ala had revealed(Know) that Rajm is incumbent on the one who commits zina when he or she is (of the quality of) Ihsaan (i.e. married), when evid ence has been established or there is pregnancy or confession.” (Bukhaari and Mu s lim)
(2) Hadhrat Ibnus Saamit (radhiyallahu anhu) — a Sahaab i —narrated: “Verily, the Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said :
‘Take from me! Take from me! Verily Allah has made a way for them (adulteresses) — (The punishment) for an unmarried p e r- son with an unmarried person is 100 lashes and banishment of one year; for married persons it is 100 lashes and Rajm.”(Muslim and Abu Daawood)
(3) “Sha'bi narrated that on the occasion when Ali Ibn Taali b (radhiyallahu anhu) executed Rajm on a woman on the Day of Jumuah, he said: ‘I applied Rajm on her by the Sunnat of Ras u- lullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).” (Bukhaari)
In this incident, Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) had flogged the man, Shuraahah on Thursday and execute d Rajm on the woman on Friday. When it was said to Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) :”You have combine d J a ld (flogging ) an d Rajm (stoning).” He said: “I flogged him on the authority of the Kitaab of Allah and executed Rajm on the au t hority of the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).”
(4 ) “Jaabir Bin Abdullah Ansaari (radhiyallahu anhu) na r- rated that a man from (the tribe of) Aslam came to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and said that he had committed zina. He testified against himself four times. Then Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ordered that he be stoned. Rajm was then inflicted on him. He was a married pe r- son.” (Bukhaari)
(5) “Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that while Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was in the Musjid a man approached him and exclaimed: ‘O Rasulullah! Verily, I have committed zina.' Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ignore d him. When he had testified against himself four times, Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) called him and said: ‘Are you insane?' He replied: ‘No.' Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasa l- lam) asked: ‘Are you married?' He said: ‘Yes.' Then Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ordered (the Sahaabah): Take him away and execute Rajm on him. ”
(6 ) “Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that Nabi
(sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘The child is for the bed (of the husband, i.e. it is his legitimate child notwithstanding the a c- cusation of adultery leveled at his wife), and for the adulterer are stones (i.e.Rajm).” (S ahih Muslim )
(7) A man had committed adultery with his employer's wife. The man's father had secured the release of his son from his a p- prehenders by ransoming him with 100 sheep and a slave. When the matter was presented to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasa l- lam), he said:
“I take oath by The Being in Whose control is my life! I shall decide by the Kitaab of Allah. The 100 shee p and the slave should be returned to you, and your son be flogged 100 lashes and banished for a year.” Then (instructing a Sahaab i) whose name was Unays, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:
‘O Unays! Go to the wife of this man. If she confesses t o having committed zina, then execute Rajm on her.' He went to her. After she confessed, he inflicted Rajm o n her.” (Sahih Bukhaari)
Besides these few quotations from the authentic Hadith ku t ub, all other Hadith Books report o n Rajm. All Authorities report that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had commanded the infliction of Rajm . The Sahaabah had inflicte d Rajm during the lifetime of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and the Khulafa - e - Raashideen had done the same during their respective khilaafats.
None of these Hadith books was the work of any Maul ana of th e Indo - Pak subcontinent. None of these illustrious personalities was a Maulana who had graduated at any Daarul Uloom o f th e Indo - Pak subcontinent. Only confirmed munaafiqeen and mu r- taddeen can venture such drivel.
The evidence to substantiat e Rajm is overwhelming and conc l u- sive. It is impossible for a man whose sanity is intact to deny his torical facts which no one has ever refuted in the past fo u r- teen centuries of Islam's history. The only exception is the de v i- ated sect, the Khawaarij. These heretics were the only criminals in the history of Islam who had denie d Rajm. Insha'Allah, we shall elaborate this issue later. But, they never denied the histor i- cal fact tha t Rajm was practiced. They denied its validity as an Islamic injunction. But the modernis t zindeeqs deny even th e his torical reality of th e Rajm.
Irrespctive of th e fiqhi (juridical) differences regarding the d e- tails of pertaining t o Rajm in terms of the different Mat h - habs which present their proofs on valid Hadith and Qur'aanic basis, there is complete consensus of all Authorities and Mat h - habs on the validity o f Rajm. No one has ever disputed that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his Khulaf a- e - Rashideen had inflicted the punishment o f Rajm on adulterers. The only diffe r- ences pertain to the type and degree of evidence required to s e- cure conviction. But o n Rajm itself, there is no dispute. There is only unanimity.
The modernist munaafiqeen an d murtad d so - cal led sheikhs and scholars are at pains in their endeavour to confuse Muslims by introduciong differences in details. They have embarked on this futile and devious exercise in a bid to divert attention from t he validity o f Rajm and from the irrefutable fact tha t Rajm had e x - isted in Islam from the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi w a- sallam).
Islamic, Hadith and historical facts cannot be denied and d i s- missed on the basis of Qur'aanic silence. If an event is not r e- corded in the explicit text of the Qur'aan Shareef, it does not f o l- low as a logical or incumbent conclusion that such an event never existed in history. Consider the existence of the Khulaf a - e - R a ashideen. No person, be he Muslim, Shiah or any other brand of kaafir denies the historical fact of the Khilaafat of the fou r four Khulafa of Islam. While the Shiahs deny the Islamic legality and legitimacy of the Khilaafat of the first three Righ t- eous Khulafa of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), they not not refute the historical fact of the Khilaafat of Hadhrat A b u Bakr, Hadhrat Umar and Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu a n- hum).
To claim that Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) and the other Khulafa were not installed as the Rulers of Islam merely on the basis of the silence of the Qur'aan Majeed on this issue, is palpably absurd. In exactly the same manner is it absurd to clai m tha t Rajm was not a punishment inflicted by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Khulafa - e - Rasshideen b e- cause the Qur'aan nowhere mentions it.
If any munaafi q o r murtad d has a rabid desire to appease his ku f faar masters by a denunciation o f Rajm , he should tender a refutation of the Islamic legality and validity o f Rajm in which the Ummah believes. He should present facts in refutation, not display absurdity and puerility by asserting the very no n - existence o f Rajm in Rasulullah's time. Such a stupid denial is a vivid commentary of the stark ignorance and downright stupid-ity of these westernize d munaafiqeen an d murtaddeen.
We have furnished conclusive evidence from the Ahaadith for the belief and contention of the Ummah tha t Rajm was c o m- manded and executed by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Khulaf a- e - Raashideeen.
Let us now se e what the illustrious Authorities of the Sharia h — the Aimmah Mujtahideen and the Fuqaha in genera l — have to say on this issue. Summing up the Verdict of these noble A u- thorities — the Sal f -e - Saalihee n — the following appears in A l - Mughni of Ibn Qudaamah, the Hambali (no n - Maulana) author-ity:
“The compulsion o f Rajm for a married adulterer and adulte r- ess is the view of all the People of Ilm among the Sahaabah, the Taabieen and those Ulama who followed after them in all the lands (of Islam). We do not know of any opposing view except that of the Khawaarij.
As for us (the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah ) R a j m is proven on the authority of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by way of his statement and his practice in such narrations which rese m- bl e Mutawaatar . There is consensus of the Ashaab (Sahaabah) of Rsulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) on Rajm. Verily, Allah Ta' ala had revealed it ( Rajm ) in His Kitaab. However, only its written text has been abrogated, not it s huk m (effectiveness as law). ”
( In substantiation, A l - Mughni cites the narration of Hadhrat Umar which we have recorded on page ?) xxxthe above pa s- sage in a smaller type. As well as the following quotation
The following appears i n Mathaabib Ar'ba - ah :
“The Aimmah are unanimous that the Hadd of Rajm is compu l- sory for the adulterer and adulteress if the condition of Ihsaan is found in them. Stoning them is compulsory until they die. This i s based on the statement of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasa l- lam): When the married man and married woman commit zina stone them absolutely as a punishment from Allah.” The Hadith is Mutta f aq Alayhi (i.e. narrated by Imaam Bukhaari and Imaam Muslim). Also on the basis of the statement of the Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam): “Verily, Rajm is a Command in the Kitaab of Allah for the one who commits zina if he or she is a married pe r- son……..This Hadith is Muttafaq Alayh.”
And also on the basis of the fact that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi w a- sallam) inflicted Rajm on Maaiz (radhiyallahu anhu) and he i n- flicted Rajm on Hadhrat Ghaamadiyyah (radhiyallahu anha) and others besides them. And, also the fact that the Khulaf a - e - Rashidee n inflicted the Hadd of Rajm. For this there is Ijma' (Consensus) without any criticism from anyone among them (the Sahaabah). Thus the Hadd of Rajm is substantiated on the basis of Ahaadit h - e - Mutawaatarah, the practice of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and the Ijma' of the Ummah. ”
THE CLEAR RULINGS OF THE MAT H -HABS
Maaliki Math-hab : “Rajm will be executed gainst the a dult Muslim….” (Mawaahibul Jaleel)
Hanafi Math-hab : “When th e ihsaan of the adulterer has been substa n tiated by means of evidence or confession, Rajm will be inflicted on him on the basis o f Nass (categoric Hadith Proof), and on t he basis of rational proof. Th e Nas s is th e Mash - hoor Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam): ‘ The blood of a Musli m is not lawful except with one of three factors — Kufr after Imaan; Zina after Ihsaan; Killing a person without valid cause . ” (Badaaius Sanaa'i)
Shaa fi Math-hab : “When the adulterer is a muhsin , his (or her) hadd (prescribed punishment) i s Rajam.” (Raudhatut Taalibeen)
Hambali Math-hab : “The Aimmah are unanimous that the Hadd of he adulterer and adulteress i s Rajm…. ” (A l -Mughni)
These few references have been cited merely as a sample of the vast volum e of unequivocal proofs stated in the innumerable Books of the Shariah right from the very beginning of Islam down to this day. T he consensus of the Ummah in every age on the validity o f Raj m is complete and unique. There is not a s i n- gle dissenting voice on this issue among the authorities of the Shariah in Islam's 14 century history . The consensus o n Rajm is of the same degree as th e Ijma ' (Consensus) on 100 lashes for unmarried fornicators.
COMPLETION AND PERFECTION OF ISLAM ISLAM ' S PERFECTION
It goes without saying that Islam with its Shariah and Sunnah, had attained completion and perfection during the v e ry lifetime of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). This is confirmed by the Qur'aan: “This day have I perfected for you your Deen, and I have completed for you My Favour, and I have chosen for you Islam as your Deen.”
The most incontrovertible evidence for the perfection and c o m- pletion of Allah's Shariah is the Finality of Nubuwwat. The sel f - evident consequence of the Finality of Nubuwwat is that the Shariah brought by Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is the Final, the Complete and the Perfect Shariah which will not tolerate any adulteration, interpolation, excess and deletion. Whatever was part of this immutable Shariah during the age of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and th e Khairul Quroon (the Three Noble Ages after him), will remain integral consti t u- ents of this Divine Shariah until the Day of Qiyaamah. Whatever was not part of this Shariah during th e Khairul Quroon epoch is not part of the immutable Shariah of Allah Ta'ala.
A very very important yardstick for the determination of the truth or falsity of a view is the existence or no n -existence of that view/belief/injunction during the era of th e Khairul Quroon. R a- sulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had demarcated the limits of goodness and truth with the ending of this noble era. The a s- cendancy of falsehood and innovation was initiated after the Khairul Quroon. Hence, any view, belief, tenet or practice which e n joyed the Consensus ( Ijma') of the Ummah during the Khairul Quroo n was an integral constituent of the inviolable and sacred Dee n . Which was completed and perfected by Allah Ta'ala during the lifetime of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasa l- lam).
In the light of this Shar'i Yardstick, the substantiation of the chronological inception of the belief tha t Rajm is not a n Islamic injunction and that it was not ordered by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is an imperative devolution on these modernist juhhaal, zindeeqs and munaafiqeen who have blindly joined the kuffaar chorus labelin g Rajm ‘barbaric'. It rests squar ely on th e shoulders of these ignoramuses who pipe the theme and song of the western kuffaar to produce irrefutable evidence th a t Rajm was not the mandatory punishment for adulterers of th e Ihsaan class. For the sake of brevity we shall content ourselves w ith sa y ing that married persons are of th e Ihsaan classification a l-though the term has a much wider meaning.
It is necessary for the denouncers o f Rajm to substantiate with Shar'i' evidence tha t Rajm did not exist in the age of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) nor in the era of the Khairul Quroon, nor in the entui re history of Islam, nor did Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ever execute the punishment of Rajm , nor did the Sahaabah e ver mete out this punishment and that there exists n o Ijma ' on the validity o f Rajm from the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu ala y hi wasallam).
It furthermore devolves on these miserable miscreants who have traded their souls to appease the western kuffaar f or whateve r nafsaani designs they may be having, to state when precisely in the history of Islam did their view develop, that i s , the view that Rajm is not an Islamic injunction. If they fail to present a sat i s- factory response — and most assuredly they must fail — to these queries, their case falls flat. In fact, their claim is devoid of Shar'i substance.
THE INCEPTION OF RAJM
Even the enemies o f Rajm join the consensus of the Ummah in upholding the claim that R asulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did in fact mete ou t Rajm to two Yahood adulterers. In a lu d i- crous attempt to provide credibility for their view, th e mulhids aver that suc h Rajm which was ordered by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was in terms of the Tauraa h —the Shariah of Hadhrat Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam).
Be that as it may. The irrefut able fact inherent in this averment is tha t Rajm was a prescription of the Tauraah. It is a known fact on which every Muslim ha s to incumbently have Imaan, that the Tauraah was the Divine Scripture which Allah Ta'ala had r e- vealed to Hadhrat Musaa ((alayhis salaam). The fact that Ra s u- lu l lah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) issued the decree o f Rajm in compliance with the Shariah, testifies to the truth and the divi n- ity of the punishment o f Rajm.
In otherwords, Allah Ta'ala had commande d Rajm for adulte r- ers. Now whe n Rajm is irrefutably a command of Allah Ta'ala and it was ordered to be inflicted on adulterers by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), then by which attribute of Imaan can a Muslim deny the validity of this punishment, and by which stretch of Imaani intelligence can he join the kuffaar chorus to sing the song of ‘barbarism'?
COMMAND OF THE QUR'AAN
Beside s the command o f Rajm in th e Mansukhut Tilaawat (aayat whose recitation alone is abrogated) , the Qur'aan c o m- mands that Muslims accept Rajm in the same way as they accept that there are fiv e Fardh Salaat in a day. Issuing this command, The Qur'aan Majeed states:
“Obey Allah and His Rasool ………”
“Whatever the Rasool bring s to you, hold on firmly to it, and whatever he forbids you of, abstain from it.”
“Verily, in the Rasool o f Allah is a Beautiful Pattern (of life and law)……..”
“It is not lawful for a believing man nor a believing woman when Allah and His Rasool have ordained a matter that they hav e any choice regarding their affairs.”
“By your Rabb! They do not believe (i.e. they are not Mu'min) as long as they do not appoint you (O Muha n- nad!) as the arbiter in their mutual disputes. Then they find no
fault with what you (O Muhammad!) have decide d, and they wholly submit.”
“The Mu'mineen are only those who believe in Allah and His Rasool, then they have no doubt…..”
“Say (O Muhammad!) Obey Allah and the Rasool. If you turn your backs, then (know that) verily, Allah does not love the kaafireen. ”
“O People of Imaan! Believe in Allah and in Hi s R a- sool…”
“...Those who believe in Our aayaat, they are those who follow the Rasool who is the Ummi Nabi …. ”
The Qur'aan repeatedly commands obedience to Allah's Rasool. Minus this obedience the claim of following the Qur'aan is a b- s o lutely baseless and absurd. The Qur'aanic theme of this twin obedience testifies to the incumbency of obeying what Rasulu l- lah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had commanded. He had c o m- manded innumerabl e Ahkaa m (laws of the Shariah) for which there is no explicit reference in the Qur'aan. But to argue that Fajr does not have two raka'ts Fard h on account of the the s i- lence of the Qur'aan is not an implied rejection of the Qur'aan. It is a clear and a direct refutation of the Qur'aan. The dema n d to produce explicit textual reference from the Qur'aan for every injunction of the Shariah is preposterous and stems from kufr hidden in the heart.
BOOK OF NASEEHAT
The Qur'aan itself describes that it is a Thik r or an admonition. The Qur'aan is not a b ook of Fiqhi (juridical) details. The Deen of Islam is not confined to the Qur'aanic text. This fact is too ob vious for dilation. Broad immutable principles are deducted from Qur'aanic aayaat, on which are based innumerable details of the Shariah. Among these inviolable Principles is the prin c i- ple of Itaa'a t - e - Rasoo l (or obedience to the Messenger of Allah.
This principle is substantiated my numerous Qur'aanic verses. The incumbency of obedience to the Rasool is in the same cat e- gory as obedience to Allah Ta'ala. Those who seek to create a division between the twin obediences (which in reality is ONE obe d ience – the obedience to Allah Ta'ala) explicitly deny the many Qur'aanic verses commanding obedience to the Rasool, e. g.
“O People of IImaan! Obey Allah and obey th e R a- soool…”
The copious Qur'aanic verses and the Ahaadith Mutawaatarah leave absolutely no scope for doubt or difference in the inc u m- bency of obeying the Rasool.
It is Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) who had c o m- mande d Rajm and who had practically executed this punishment to married adulterors. It is unintelligent to refute this historic a l reality on the basis of this punishment being 'inhuman', and that there is no explicit reference to it in the Qur'aan. Allah T a'al a and His Rasool are more aware of what constitutes humanity and inhumanity. Allah Ta'ala, The Creator understands the need of a punishment for a crime. The command to punish with a sp e- cific form of punishment is the prerogative of Allah Ta'ala. No creation of His has any right whatsoever to find fault with suc h a divine decree. The very questioning of the validity and humanity o f Raj m is kufr which renders a Muslim a murtad d (renegad e — outside the pale of Islam).
In their abortive attempt to refute the validity o f Rajm , the afor e- mentioned enemies of the Deen from within, resort to the f o l- l ow ing arguments:
(1 ) The Qur'aan is silent o n Rajm.
(2 ) The aayat in Surah Noor orders 100 lashes for zina.
(3 ) Summary dismissal of all the Ahaadith which make e x- plicit reference t o Rajm.
(4 ) Th e Rajm decreed by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasa l- lam) on two Jewish culprits was in terms of the Tauraah, and was not an injunction of Islam.
RESPONSE TO THEIR FIRST ARGUMENT
S ilence of the Qur'aan on any issue is not evidence for the no n - existence of an injunction. The Qur'aan is silent on the number of times Salaat is Fardh daily. It is silent on the number of r a- ka'ts; silent on the manner in which Salaat has to be performed; silent on the hundreds of rules pertaining to Salaat such as Qiraa't, Qiyaam, Sajdah, Sajdah Sahw,Tashahhud, Qa'dah Ulaa, Qa'dah, Akheerah, Tashahhud, Durood, Salaam, etc., etc.; silent o n the details of Zakaat, Saum and the innumerable other rites and acts of ibaadat. The Qur'aan is silent on the method o f Th a- bah (Islamic ritual slaughter); silent on the detailed masaai l r e- lated to Tahaarat; silent on the Islamic system of burial and the performance of ghusl and Janaazah Salaat; silent on Eid Salaa t ; silent on thousands of issues on which there exists Ijma ' (Consensus) of the entire Ummah from the very inception of Islam.
I n view of this situation o f Qur'aanic Silence , the denial of all Ahaadith by th e murtadd incubus is the ranting of a man whom shaitaan has driven to insanity by his wicked touch. There is no need for intelligent comment on this issue as every Mu'min wi th understanding does understand the fundamental importance of the Ahaadith in the formulation of the structure of the Divine Shariah. Only an incubus can claim theat there can be an ‘islam' bereft of the Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasalla m ).
RESPONSE TO THE SECOND ARGUMENT
The punishment of 100 lashes is th e Hadd for unmarried adulte r- ers. This is the unanimous Ruling of the entire Ummah from the very beginning of Islam, there being no difference of opinion on this issue . Ijma ' on this fact has existed from the inception of I s- lam. In view of the complete unanimity of the entire Ummah for the past fourteen centuries on the applicability of thi s Hadd , t h e stupid argument of th e mulhids and incubuse s is dismissed with contempt. Further argument on this issue in the face of the Wa l l of Consensus is redundant.
RESPONSE TO THE THIRD ARGUMENT
This averment is too ludicrous for intelligent comment. We d i s- miss it with the brief comment, that thousands of Islamic tea c h- ings , tenets, injunctions and beliefs are structured on the Ahaadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The names o f t he famous Muhadditheen such as Imaam Bukhaari and Imaam Muslim are household names. Suffice to say that minus the Ahaadith there is no Qur'aan and no Islam. No Muslim will proffer an ear to this kufr drivel of th e incubus.
RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH ARGUMENT
Assuming that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did in fact, sentence the two Jews to be executed b y Rajm in terms of the Tauraah , it is a confession made by the deniers o f Rajm . In this confession they have been compelled to concede that, afte r all, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did order the exe c u- tion o f Rajm.
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) came to abrogate all pr e- vious Shariahs and Laws and impose only the Final Shariah of Allah Ta'al a — Islam. He did not govern by the earlier Shariahs. Th e re are many issues on which there is the agreement of this Final Shariah with the Shariah of the Tauraah, since both were revealed Laws of Allah Ta'ala. There is absolutely no subst a n- tiation for the claim that th e Rajm which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasasallam) ordered for the two Jews on the basis of the Tauraah does not apply to Muslims. Any such suggestion is d e- bunked by the example of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasa l-lam), the Sahaabah and th e Ijma ' of the Ummah.
The Ahaadith substantiatin g Rajm are of th e Mutawaata r class which is the highes t category of Hadith. This category of Hadit h gives rise to the consequence o f Qatiya t (Absolute Certitude, not brooking the slig htest vestige of doubt) in the same way as the Qur'aan.
None of the Sahaabah and Fuqaha of th e Khairul Quroon had ever ventured the interpretation ventured by th e incubuses to r e- fut e Rajm. Whatever valid interpretation was made by the A u- thorities of the Shariah, it did not conclude in the rejection of Rajm. On the contrary all th e Fuqaha and Mufassireen notwi t h- standing interpretations, confirmed the validity an d Qatiyya t of the injunction o f Rajm.
The very first deviate sect o f kuf r to develop in the Ummah was th e Khawaari j . These deviates were mercilessly pursued and e x- terminated by Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). Like the incu- buses , this sect denie d Rajm. Discussing the denial of the K h a- waarij, Allamah Zafar Ahmad Uthmaani (rahmatullah alayh) states i n I'laaus Sunan :
(this quotatuion in smaller print
“ Rajm is pr oven by the statements and actions of Rasululla h (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The Narrations of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayh i wasallam) in this regard are comparable to Mutawaatar. The Sahaabah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi w a- sallam) had enacted consensus on it (Rajm).
Muhaqqiq states in A l -Fath: “The denial of the Khawaarij is baatil because they deny the evidence of the Ijma' of the Sah a a- bah, hence it (their denial) is compound ignorance of the e v i- dence. In fact it (the Law of Rajm) i s Ijma' Qa t - iyy…..
The substantiation of Rajm from Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam ) i s Mutawaatar in meaning just as the courage of Ali, the generosity of Haatim and the justice of Umar (are substan t i- ated by such narrations o f Mutawaata r meaning).
There is absolutely no doubt in the basis o f Rajm………Verily, Umar said: “I fear that after a lapse of considerable time, pe o- ple )like today's incubuses) will say: 'We do not find Rajm in the Book of Allah, while Allah has revealed it (Rajm) in His K i- taab.'' Only its text has been abrogated, not its hukm. It has been narrated from Umar Ibn Khattaab (radhiyallahu anhu) that he said: 'Verily, Allah Ta'ala sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed to him The Kitaab (Qur'aan). Among tha t which He (Allah ( had revealed to him was the Aayat of Rajm. I recited it, understood it and memorized it. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam ) ordered Rajm and after him we too ordered Rajm. I fear that after a considerable time has lapsed, people will say (like the in cubuses say today): 'We do not find Rajm in the Book of Allah.' Thus they will go astray by abandoning a compulsory command which Allah has revealed………..He r e- cited: 'When the married man and married woman commit zina , then stone them as an absolute punishment from Allah. And A l- lah is The Mighty, The Wise.' This Hadith is Muttafaq Alayh (i. e. Narrated by Imaam Bukhaari and Imaam Muslim).”
A delegation of the Khawaarij came to Hadhrat Umar Bin Abdul Azeez (Umar, The Second), and said : “In the Book o f Allah i s nothing other than lashes.” Umar Bin Abdul Azeez
(rahmatullah alayh) said: “You say nothing (by way of proof) )
excep t what is in the Qur'aan.” They said : “Yes.” He said:
“Inform me about the number of the Fardh Salaat, the number of their Ark a an and raka'ts, and of their respective times. Where do you find these in the Book of Allah Ta'ala? And, tel l me about the things in which Zakaat is compulsory — their qua n- tities and their Nisaabs. ” They said : “Give u s time .” Thus, they departed and returned the same day (after having checked the Qur'aan). They said : “We did not find these things in the Qur'aan. ” Umar Bin Abdul Azeez said : “How did you then a c- cept these?” They said : “Because, verily the Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) practised these and so did the Muslims (the Sahaabah) after him.” He then said to them : “Similarly is Rajm. Verily the Nabi (Alahis Salaam) stoned and the Khulafa after him stoned as well as the Muslims thereafter.”
The Khawaarij inspite of their deviation, at least possessed suff i- cient intelligence to refrain from refuting the Ahaadith of Ra s u- lullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in the immoral way of the i n- cubus. They had to concede by their silence the validity of the the Argument of Hadhrat Umar Bin Abdul Azeez (rahmatullah alayh ).
FURTHER EVIDENCE
In A l - Mughni it is recorded : “With refards to the compulsion of Rajm for the Muhsin adulterer, man or woma n — this is the view of all the People of Knowledge among the Sahaabah, the Taabieen and the Ulama of the lands (of Islam) in al l ages after them (the Taabieen). We do not know of any difference in this regard except that of the Khawaarij. ”
The following ap pears in A l - Fiqhul Islaamiyyu wa Adillatuhu: “There is consensus of the Ulama on the Hadd of the muhsin adulterer. And, it ( t he Hadd) is Rajm. This is substantiated with the proof of the Sunnah Mutawaatarah, the Ijma' of the Ummah and rational argument.
As for the Sunnah — there are numerous Ahaadith (to substan t i- ate Rajm). Among them is:
"'The blood of a Muslim is not lawful except on the basis of one of three reasons — a married adulterer, life for life (in case of murder), and one who abandons his Deen, dissen t- ing from the Jama'ah (Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah). (Bukhaari, Muslim from Ibn Mas'ud, Uthmaan, A i-shah, Abu Hurairah, Jaabir, Ammaar Bin Yaaasi r — Referto Nasbur Raayah. Also Al - Majmaauz Z awaaid and A l - Arbaeenun Nawawiyyah).
“The episode of Aseef who had committed adultery with a w o ma n, then Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said if to a man from Aslam: ‘O Unais! Go to this woman, and she confesses, then stone her.”(Bukhaari, Muslim, Muatta, Ahmad, Abu Daawood, T irmizi, Nasaai, etc.)
.“The story of Maaiz, which has been narrated from various sources. Verily he confessed to hav i ng committe d adultery. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) then commanded Rajm to be inflicted on hi m. ”(Muslim, Abu Daawood, Ahmad, Bukhaari, Tirmizim Baihqi, Abu Ya'la, Tabaraani)
The incident of Maa - iz has been narrated by a group of th e Sahaabah, and it has reached the level of Mutawaat a rah.
.“The episode of A l - Ghaamadiyyah. She had confessed to zina. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had her stoned. after she gave birth.” (Muslim, Abu Daawood, Nailul Autaar)
The Ummah has enacted Ijma' on the legality of Rajm.” A l - Mathaahibul Arba - ah states : “The Aimmah are unanimous that the man and w o man in whom the conditions o f Ihsaan are fulfilled, when they commit ad u l- tery, the n Rajm is compulsory on both of them until they die. The proof for this is the statement of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) : “When the married man and the married woman commit adultery, then stone both of them as a punis h- ment from Allah. ” This Hadith is Muttafaq Alahy (i.e. it has been narrated by Bukhaari and Muslim.
And on account of the state m ent of the Nabi (alayhis salaam):
“The blood of a person is not lawful except for one of three re a- sons. The married adulterer, life for life (murder), and the one who renounces his Deen, dissenting from the Jama'ah.” This has been narrated in Bukhaari and Muslim from Aishah (radhiyallahu anha), Abu Hurairah and Ibn Mas'ud (radhiyallahu anhuma).
And because Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) stoned Maa - iz, and he stoned A l - Ghaamidiyyah and others besides them.
And because the Khulafa Raashideen execute d Rajm by virtue of Ijma' without anyone among them (the Sahaabah) objecting. Thus th e Hadd o f R aj m is based on Ahaadith Mutawaatarah, on the practice of the Rasool (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Ijma' of the Ummah. A n d, it is also proven on the basis of the Qur'aan in terms of the view of those who say that the Hadith of Rajm was an aayat of t he Qur'aan, then its recital was abrogated while it s huk m was retained.”
Nusk h or abrogation of Qur'aanic v erses and laws of the Shariah is the prerogative of Allah Azza Wa Jal. No one has the right to question the authority and prero g ative right of Allah Ta'ala. Sta t ing the Qur'aanic Principle o f Nuskh , Allah Ta'ala says:
“Whatever We (Allah) abrogate of any aayat or cause it t o be forgotten, We bring (another) better than it or similar to it. What, do you not know that verily Allah has power over everything?” (Surah Bqarah, aayat 106)
There i s Ijma' (Consenus) of the Sahaabah and the Ummah on th e nusk h o f tilaawa t of the aayat of Rajm. There is als o Ijma ' on the retention of th e huk m of this abrogated aayat. The law r e- mains effective. Onl y incubuses have the audacious stupidity of denying what the entire Ummah has believed in since the very inception of Islam.
Declaring the lofty status of Ameerul Mu'mineen, Umar Bin Khattaab (radhiyallahu anhu), Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi w a- sallam) said : “If a Nabi had to come after me, it would have been Umar.”
He possessed the qualities, attributes and qualificat i ons of a Nabi. If Nubuwwat had not been sealed in Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the next Nabi would have been Hadhra t Umar (radhiyallahu anhu). His attributes of Nubuwwa t — his insight, forsightedness and wisdo m — are c o n- spicuous in many acts and statements. In the matter o f Rajm this is manifest in his prediction that a time will come when people will refute the validity o f Rajm by claiming that the Qur'aan is silent on thi s Hadd. He, therefore, closed the avenue for th e i n- cubuses by reciting th e Mansuk h aayat o f Rajm , and by his ca t e- goric affirmation o f Rajm having been executed by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and by himself (as the Ameerul Mu'mineen) after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
Not a single Sahaabi contested the statements of Hadhrat Umar (radhi yallahu anhu). Th e Ijma ' of the Sahaabah o n Rajm is an irrefutable fact which onl y mulhids, zindeeqs, munaafiqs and i n- cubuses will stupidly deny. The denial proffered by these crim i- nals is calculated to appease their western mentors who have pr opounded the concept of “international standards of human rights”.
The numerous Ahaadith o n Rajm , accepted by all authorities of the Shariah, leave absolutely no scope for the denial o f Rajm and for any interpretation to refut e Rajm.
Some incubuses (evil spirits who ravage women at night) have vainly tried to peddle th e notion tha t Rajm was the law of the Tauraah, which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had a d- hered to prior to the revelation of the verse ordering 100 lashes for zina. This claim is palpably fallacious.
Not a single au t hority, right from the time of the Sahaabah, ever entertained this baseless opinion which is the idea of th e mulhids of this ag e . There is absolutely no evidence for this baseless claim. Incidents of Rajm inflicted by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasalla m ) were carried out after the revelation of this verse which applied to only unmarried fornicators . Th e Rajm executed by the Khul afa Raashideen is absolute confirmation for this truth. Th e incubuses have nothing to stand on other than the figments of thei r imagination and their personal opinions which meet with the approval of only the western kuffaar who rant and rail against the i njunctions of Islam in general. Their villification is not confined t o Rajm.
On e incubus who styles himself as a ‘sheikh' atte m pted to deny th e Rajm Hadith by saying that this narration is of th e Aahaad class. Firstly, he has no right to present the Had i th categories to substantiate hi s baati l an d kuf r denial o f Rajm because he b e- lieves and propagates that ALL Ahaadith are fabrications and ‘evil spirits'. According to the insan e incubus , only the Qur'aan has to be accepted, nothing else. When it suits his fancy, he c o n- veniently forgets his total denial of Hadith, and seeks to use the Hadith as a crutch to support his corrupt view o f kufr .
Secondly, all the Sahaabah and the illustrious Authorities of the Shariah of th e Khairul Quroon era, had greater knowledge of the Hadith categories than thi s incubu s of this day. Yet they e l e- vated thes e Aahaad narrations to the pedestal o f Mutawwata r — the highest category of Hadith on par with the Qur'aan in so far as belief and derivation o f Ahkaa m are concerned.
Thirdly , th e incubus is a Jaahi l (ignoramus) who has neither knowledge nor a uthority to voice himself on the classification and application of Ahaadith.
Fourthly, an opinion of a n incubus of this age can not be cited in negation of the fourteen centur y Ijma ' of the Ummah.
Fifthly, the widespread acceptance by the Authorities of H adit h of th e Aahaad class and th e Ijma ' of the Sahaabah and all the s u b sequent Authorities on such narrations being valid basis for suc h Ahkaa m which requir e Qat'i proof for their validity, e l e- vates the meaning and applicabity of these Ahaadith to the pe d- e s tal o f Mutawaatar .
INSULT TO ALLAH AND HIS RASOOL
Sight should not be lost of the one single ‘proof' of those who deny the validity o f Rajm. They structure their denial on the b a- sis o f Rajm being ‘barbaric' . Their denial is motivated solely by the desire to vindicate the cry of the enemies of Islam who brand the Islamic Penal Syste m barbaric. For upholding this view of the kuffaar, thes e incubus deniers of Rajm present their utterly baseless interpretations and rejection of all the authentic Ahaadith which confirm the Law o f Rajm. In their inordinate d e- sire to appease their western masters and mentors, they imply that Allah Ta'ala and Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) are
‘barbaric' — Nauthubillah!
That Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had ordere d Rajm to be inflicted on two Yahudi adulterers is undeniable. Regar d- less of whether he had ordere d Rajm in terms of the Tauraah or in terms of the Qur'aan. It is immaterial. The undeniable reality is that Nab i - e - Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did execu te Rajm on the Yahudi adulterers. If Rajm i s ‘barbaric' , the charg e of barbarism is leveled at Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasa l- lam) and Allah Ta'ala because the Rasool acts only in obedience to the Command of Allah Ta'ala. Th e kuf r an d irtidaad of the incubuses should therefore be manifest to all.
The discussion in these pages conclusively establishes tha t Rajm has been an injunction of Islam from the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). In fact, it was an injunction in the Shariats prior to the Shariah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi w a- sallam). No one, not even the kuffaar, deny the fact o f Rajm h av ing been the Law in the Shariah of the Tauraah. The Chr i s- tian Bible too confirms this fact. Only th e incubuse s slinking in the folds of the Ummah deny the validity o f Rahm.
Rajm is substantiated by the Qur'aan which commands obed i- ence to the Rasool and which equates obedience of the Rasool to obedience to Allah Ta'ala. The Qur'aan upholds
Rajm with a Mans ukhut Tilaawa t aayat as has already been explained.
Rajm i s substantiated by Ahaadith of the Mutawaata r category. Such Ahaadit h have the same degree of absolute certitude as the Qur'aan.
Rajm is upheld by th e Ijma ' of the Sahaabah, the Taabieen and all the Authorities of th e Khairul Quroon era.
Rajm is confirmed by th e Ijma ' of the Ummah in every age from the beginning to this day. Never was there a difference of opinion on the question of the validity o f Rajm. Only the deviate Khawaarij sect had denied the legal validity o f Rajm, not its hi s- torical reality.
The mass and volume of evidence in support of the validity of Rajm cannot be dismissed on the basis of the personal ideas and baseless opinions of a handful of modernists , zindeeqs, mulhids, munaafiqs and incubuses of this age.
In refutation of the f a llacies of the deniers o f Rajm , the Qur'aan Majeed states :
“Those who dispute in the matter of Allah after He (i.e.His Law) has been accepted, their disputation is baseless by their Rabb. And, on them is the Wrath (of Allah) and for them there is a dreadful punishment.” ( Surah Shuraa, Aayat 16)
THE OPERATION OF RAJM
Alhamdulillah! By th e fadhl of Allah Ta'ala, we have explained the Shar'i Proofs for the Law o f Rajm. The overwhelming v o l-ume of evidence from all Sources of the Shariah establishes the validity of this injunction of Islam beyond the slightest vesti g e of doubt. It cannot be a Muslim who will view with intran s i- gence the formidable volume of Shar'i evidences there exists to substantiate the validity o f Rajm. How a person professing to be a Muslim can scrape the dregs o f kuf r in an attempt to deny an injunction in whose wall of evidence there is not the slightest crack, beggars Islamic imagination.
It is our belief tha t murtadd s who profess to be Muslims, then blasphemously describin g t he Hadith of the Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) as an evil spirit which indulgences in sexual intercourse with women during t he night times when it manages to gain possession of them, deserve the punishment o f Rajm. U n doubtedly, if Daarul Islam had existed, such punishment would have been fortcoming for such vil e incubuses.
We shall now, Insh a 'Allah, proceed to explain ho w Rajm would operate in a truly Islamic State.
DEFINITION
Rajm is a prescribed form of punishmen t calle d Hadd (plural: Hudood) . In the Shariah, Hadd is a fixed prescribed punishment, the execution of which is compulsory as a H aqq (Right) of Allah Ta'ala.
It is unnlik e Qisaas (life for a life, for example) because in Qisaa s is th e Haqq of others besides Allah Ta'ala, hence wa i v- ing the punishment o f Qisaas by forgiveness or compromise is permissible, although it is also a prescribed form of punishment. But, the class o f Hudood to whic h Rajm is assigned does not e n- tertain forgiveness, waiver or compromise if the crime is proven by way o f Bayyinah (the testimony of witnesses).
HADD OF ZINA
There are two kinds o f Hadd for zina — Jald ( lashes) an d Rajm (stoning to death). In this treatise we shall deal with only the o p- eration o f Rajm.
IHSAAN
Rajm comes into effect with the condition o f Ihsaan. Ihsaa n for the validity o f Rajm is a combination o f attributes which the Shariah stipulates for the execution o f Rajm. In the absence of Ihsaan , the punishment o f Rajm will not b e applicable. There are seven such attributes as follows:
(1 ) Aql or sanity. The adulterer must be a sane person.
(2 ) Buloogh or puberty. The adulterer must be an adult.
(3 ) Hurriyya t — The adulterer must be a free person, not a slave.
(4 ) Islam — The adulterer must be a Muslim.
(5 ) A n - Nikaahus Saheeh— The adulterer must have been ma r- ried in a valid Nikah.
(6 ) Both husband and wife in th e Saheeh Nikah should be o f these attributes. In other words, both (i.e. the husband and wife) should be sane, adults, free and Muslims. The pre s- ence of these attributes in them both is a condition for the validity of thei r Ihsaan. When these attributes exist in both o f them, they (husband and wife) will be said to be muhsan, i.e . the quality o f Ihsaa n in each one.
(7 ) Consummation of the marriage (i . e.sexual intercourse) must have taken place in th e Saheeh Nika h posterior to the existence of all the aforementioned six attrib u tes.
If any one of these attributes is lacking in the adulterer , Rajm will not apply since he/she will be lacking in the condition o f I h- saan which is imperative for th e Wujoob of Rajm .
Thus, if a married man commits adultery before he cons u m- mated his Nikah with sexual intercourse, he will not b e a , muhsin , henc e Rajm cannot be inflicted on him. If a husband or wife h ad contracted a Faasi d Nikah , e.g. only one witness was present, the n Rajm cannot be inflicted on any one of them, should they commit adultery, i.e. indulge in sexual relations with another woman/man, even if they had consummated their Faasi d Nikah .
Similarly, if one of the spouses is a minor, i.e. has n o t attaine d buloogh (puberty), then even if the Nikah is consummated, none of the spouses will be a muhsin. Should even the adult spous e commit adultery , Rajm will not be inflicted.
ZINA OR ADULTER Y
In the meaning of the Sharia h zina i s the voluntary indulgence in unlawful vaginal sexual intercourse with a living woman in D a a- rul Islam by a person on whom the laws of Islam are incumbent, while the union is totally devoid of any semblance o f mielk
(right/ownership) such as a resemblance with Nikah or a ma r- riage of doubtful validity. The slightest doubt in the application of this comprehensive concept o f zin a to the act of adulter y will cancel the punishment o f Rajm.
The principle underlying the cancellation o f Rajm with the intr o- duction of the slightest doubt is the statement of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) : “Cancel Hudood with doubts.” In other words, if a doubt develops in establishing either the defin i- tion o f zina or in the determination of the attribute o f Ihsaan, the punishment o f Rajm falls away.
Any other haraam sexual act committed, while it will be morally zina, in the technical terminology of the Shariah it will not be zina , hence neithe r Rajm n o r Jald will apply.
EVIDENCE
Zina will be proven in the court of the Qaadhi in Daarul Islam in two ways : Iqraar (Confession) or Bayyinah (Eye Witnesses).
Iqraar (Confession)
Zina is proven by the confession of the adulterer, The following conditions are essential for the validity o f Iqraa r :
(1 ) Buloog h (Puberty): The confessor must be an adult (one who has attaine d buloogh).
(2 ) A n - Nut q (Verbal Confession): The confession must be made verbally by the adulterer. A written confession is not valid. The Qaadhi will not entertain a written conf e s- sion. If a dumb person (one who does not have the power of speech) presents a written confession, it will be rejected by the Qaa dhi.
(3 ) Adad (Number): The confession has to be made four times , each confession in a separate session.
(4 ) Each confession should b e made in the presence of the Qaadhi. A confession made in the absence of the Qaadhi is not valid. Thus, if the adulterer made th r ee confessions in the presence of the Qaadhi, and one in the presence of some other official, his confession will not be valid . Even if four witnesses testify that the adulterer had made a co n- fession, it will not be valid if the Qaadhi was not present.
(5 ) Aq l (Sanity): The confessor must be sane. The confession of an intoxicated person is not valid.
(6 ) The person with whom adultery was a l legedly committed should be one who is able to defend himself/herself v e r- bally. Thus, if a man confesses to adultery which he c o m- mitted with a dumb woman, his confession will not be valid.
In all cases where the confession is not valid, it will be d i s- missed by the Qaadhi and there will be no punishment for the sel f - confessed adulterer.
AFTER THE CONFESSION
After the adulterer had made four confessions in the presence of the Qaadhi in four different sessions, it is mandatory for the Qaadhi to institute an investigation to establish the sanity and other essential attributes of the confessor. If the investig a tion confirms the confessor's sanity, etc., the Qaadhi will then inte r- r o gate him and ask him to explain the definition o f zin a , how he had committed it, where he had committed it, with whom he had co m mitted it, and when he had committed it.
After he/she has satisfactorily answered all questions, the Qaadhi will question him regarding his state o f Ihsaan. Is he a muhsi n or not?
If the confessor says: ‘I am a muhsin.” , the Qaadhi will impose on him to ex p lain the Shar'i concept o f Ihsaan . The reader will be aware from the explanation o n Ihsaa n (See page 38) that I h- saan is a concept comprising a number of conditions. These co n ditions are not within the knowledge of every man in the street. Most people will fail to correctly explain the concept of Ihsaa n. If there is any flaw or deficiency in his/her explanation, Rajm will not be imposed..
After all these hurdles have been clea red, and all conditions for Rajm have been satisfied beyond the slightest vestige of doubt, the Qaadhi will convict the adultere r and the sentence o f Rajm will be passed. . If after conviction and sentence, the adulterer retracts his confession, it will be accepted and the sentence falls away.
It is significant that the Shariah does not allow the Qaadhi to a c- cept a confession or to convict the confessor or the one who has been charged, on the basis of his (the Qaadhi's) awareness of t he crime to which he was an eye witness. His judgement must not be influenced by his own awareness of the crime which he had seen being committed.
Another significant factor is the wording of the definition o f zin a which the confessor has to explain . If he says, for example: “I indulged in haraam sexual intercourse.”, his confession will be dismissed even if he thereafter presents the technical definition.
RETRACTION
The confessor has the right to retract his co n fession at any time even while th e Rajm is in progress. The adulterer who has been sentenced on the basis of his/her confession, will not be shac k- led or tied in any way. He will stand in an open place observing the crowd and the mounds of stones infront of him. If fear ov e r- comes him and he walks away, his departure will be registered as retraction. Th e Rajm falls away. If he flees under the barrage of stones, his flight will be registered as a retraction . Rajm will fall away and he will be proclaimed not guilty.
If the con f essor after his conviction adheres to his confession, but withdraws his confession in relation to him being a muhsin , Rajm falls away.
The Procedure of executing Rajm
The Qaadhi will have to initiate the ston e- throwing. The Shariah exhorts the Qaadhi to i nduce the convicted adulterer to retract his confession. A form of inducement is that the Qaadhi should say: “Perhaps you only t ouched her or kissed her.” If inspite of all these opportunities and inducement to retract, the adulterer refuses and resolutely insists tha t Rajm be executed, then o f- course, there is no other option but to carry out the punishment. However, as mentioned earlier, the adulteror still has the oppo r- tunity of 'retracting' by simply fleeing or walking away either before the stoning begins or during the course of the stoning.
Every unbiased person can now pass his/her judgment. The Shariah has left no stone unturned in a bid to save the adulterer fro m Rajm.
BAYYINAH
Adultery can theoretically be proven by means o f Bayyinah a s well. In relation t o zina , Bayyinah is the testifi c ation of four ey e -witnesses.The extremely rigid conditions essential for valid B a y- yinah will explain why we say : Adultery can be theoretically proven by Bayyinah. The type o f Bayyinah the Shariah requires to secure a conviction in a zin a charge makes it practically i m- possible to secure such a conviction. The conditions for the v a- li d ity o f Bayyinah are :
(1 ) The ey e- witnesses must be males. The testimony of even a thousand saintly females is not admissible in all crimes of Hudood .
(2 ) The witnesses must be Muslim.
(3 ) The witnesses must be adults.
(4 ) The witnesses must be sane.
(5 ) The testimony must be verbal, not written.
(6 ) The testimony must be in the presence of the Qaadhi.
(7 ) Th e witnesses must b e Aadil, i.e. uprighteous, honest, tru t h ful and saintly men who are wel l - known in society for their moral integrity and piety.
(8 ) The number of witnesses must be four. The severity of th e demands of this condition is more than adequate to deter any man who contemplates testifying in a case o f zina. Only ey e- witness accounts are admissible. If three eye - witnesses come forward to testify, but there is no fourth witness, eac h one of the four will be flogged 80 lashes. If after fou r Aadi l witnesses testified, one of them retracts his testimony, all four will be flogged 80 lashes each.
The Qaadhi will institute public and private investigations to estab l ish the integrit y (Adaalat ) of the four witnesses. If he I discovers a discrepancy in th e adaala t of even one witnes s, all f four will be flogged 80 lashes each. These severe and stringent requirements make it too d a n- gerous f for ey e- witnesses to come forward to testify.
Furthermore, saintly people will not come forward to testify. They know that the Shariah exhorts Muslims to conceal sins and not to publicize them. The Shariah do es not make it c I incumbent on ey e- witnesses to report sins or to te s- tify. It is t h therefore, practically impossible to secure a conviction on the basis o f Bayyinah.
The Qaadhi's Procedure
The Qaadhi, after having established the Islamic integrity of the Four witnesses will interrogate them in the same manner d e- scribed in the explanation of the procedure for the confessor. A further requirement is that the witnesses will have to testif y a s follows :
“We saw him having intercourse with her in her vagina like the stick inside the surmnah container (i.e .like a key inside the lock).”
No man, leave alone a saintly man, can ever hope to witness zina being committed in this naked manner. This very imposs i- ble requirement stipulated by the Shariah is to ensure that there can be no conviction on the basis of Bayyinah . The practical i m- possibility of four pious, saintly men observing in the darkness, under cover of blankets
Zin a being committed so explicitly a s the Qaadhi demands, should be sel f - evident.
HOW DO THE SHARIAH COURTS MANAGE CONVIC-TION
From the explanation in the aforgoing pages, it will be ab u n- dantly clear that it is well nigh impossible for a Shariah court to convict people of adultery on the basis o f Bayyinah. Shar' i B a y- yina h is not practically possible to achieve. Conviction can be secured only on the basis of the Shar'i process o f Iqraar (Confession) which itself is an extremely difficult process as the requisites confirm.
Thre e zin a convictions in recent years testify to the incomp e- tence of the Qaadhis manning the Shariah courts. A few years ago a Saudi princess and her lover who was not a member of the Sau d i royal family, were executed by firing squad. The method of execution was neither Rajm nor Jald , which are the only pr e- scribed forms of punishment for adultery and fornication accor d- ing to the Shariah. Neither was the crime proven on the basis of Iqraar (Confession) nor b y Bayyinah (the testimony of four saintly persons) . There were conflicting reports on the status of the couple. The ambiguity and doubt were clear facets of this case. It is quite evident that neither were the proceedings proper nor the punishment in accordance with the Shariah, yet a so - called Shar'i court handed down the punishment . It is therefore improper to equate the Saudi court's conviction and sentence with the Shariah. Although the sentence was handed by the Saudi 'Shariah' court, it cannot be substantiated on Shar'i grounds.
The second case was truly bizarre. A woman was convicted of zina in Pakistan during the then 'Islamic' State of Pakistan while Ziyaul Haq was the president. A properly constituted Shar'i court found the woman guilty o f zin a and decreed Rajm for her. We l earnt of this case via the Evening Post, our local daily in Port Elizabeth . From the facts mentioned in the press report, we were convinced that the Shariah Court had committed a grie v i-ous error in its judgement. It had handled the case very incomp e- tently and the Hadith Principle of
“Ward off Hudood with doubts.” , was completely ignored. S e v- eral valid and serious doubts clouded the whole case. Inspite of these grave doubts, the Court convicted the woman and ordered Rajm.
The relevant press report is reproduced here for better unde r- standing of the readers.
Press Report
The sentence was set to be meted ou t in a matter of days. In the execution of our duty o f Amr Bil Ma'roof Nahy Anil Munkar (Commanding Righteousness and Prohibitin g evil), we sent the following telegram (there weree no fax machines in 1987) to the President of Pakistan:
“In the Nam e of Allah stay execution of Shahida Parveen and Mohammed Sarwar. Rajm in this case not applicable in terms of Shariah. Rasulullah said Hudood ar e cancelled by the element of doubt. Our letter of explanation has been posted to you today. Stay exec ution at least until you have read our letter stating the Law of Allah in this case.”
TEXT OF OUR LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT
ASSALAMU ALAIKUM 12th Rabiuth Thaani 1408
4th December 1987
President Ziyaul Haq Government of Pakista n Islamabad , PAKISTAN
Muhta ram,
Enclosed herewith is a press report which appeared in our local press, We have no facts and information on the case menti o ned other than what appears in the press report. Since the matter is of the gravest importance in view of the lives of Muslims being i n- volved, we are presuming that the report is correct. Until further facts come to light we have no grounds to dismiss the repor t a s false.
According to the report, one sister, Shahida Parveen of Fa i s- alabad has been sentenced to be stoned to death ( Rajm ) for h a v- ing committed adultery. However, from what we have gleaned from the report, there is insufficient evidence for the imposition of th e Rajm sentence or for eve n Jald (100 lashes) in terms of the Shariah. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has made it abundantly clear tha t Hudood are waived by the introduction of the element of doubt. In this regard Rasulullah (sallallahu ala y hi wasallam) said :
“Hudood are waived with doubts.”
In the case under discussion there seems to be the strong e l e- ment of doubt (in fact doubts). This element exists very strongly in view of the woman's claim that she is married to Sarwar. He r claim of marriage is sufficient in the Shariah for waiving of Rajm. In fact the sentence o f Rajm cannot be handed in view of this strong doubt. Th e Kutu b of the Shariah make this fact ab u n- dantly clear.
Furthermore, even if she is not legally married, we fail to unde r- stand how the crime o f zin a has been proved against her in view of the stringent conditions imposed by the Shariah for proving the crime of adultery. The enclosed article which we had p u b- lished sometime ago in our Islamic periodical, The Majlis, e x- plains in detail the requirements stipulated by the Shariah for the capital punishment o f Rajm to become legally applicable. We plead with you to peruse the article carefully, and should any miscarriage of Islamic justice have been committed, it should be rectified.
The matter is of vital importance to Muslims and we feel strongly about this matter. The life of a woman, most prob abl y innocent, is at stake. While the introduction of the Islamic Penal system in Pakistan is laudable, it is imperative to ens u re that all the conditions and requirements of the Shariah in this regard are fulfilled.
A man and a woman living together ill e gally, while abominable and sinful, is no t zin a in the technical language of the Shariah. If the police found Shahida and Sarwar living together as man and wife, such discovery does not prove the commission o f zina in terms of the Shariah. If the nikah cla imed by Shahida has been confirmed to be illegal in the Shariah, the Qaadhi can only issue a decree of separation. But no Islamic court has the right to i m-pose th e Had d o f Rajm (o r Jald) on the couple because they h a p- pen to be living together illegally.
Zin a can only be proved if four pious/saintl y (Aadil) male w i t- nesses observed with their own eyes the couple had indulged in the actual act of sexual intercourse. We are certain that the p o- lice (fou r Aadi l ones among them) could not have observed the commission of the act of sexual intercourse in its explicit and naked details allegedly committed by the two. The Shariah sti p u lates that the actual sexual act of intercourse in its naked d etails has to be observed by four pious male witnesses with their own eyes. But it is practically impossible for such explicit evidence forthcoming from pious persons even if they had w i t- nessed the act with their own eyes (which ofcourse, is not pract i- cally possible).
It is clear to us and quite obvious that the court has overstepped the limits of the Shariah and has imposed t he sentence of Rajm without having obtained the required Shar'i evidence. The due Islamic or Shar'i process of Justice has not been followed. In the circumstances it is imperative that you as the Father of the N a- tion, as President of Pakistan, urgently look into the matter and prevent the execution of an act of zul m of the gravest degree. May Allah Ta'ala bestow to you the necessary taufeeq.
Was - salaam MUJLISUL ULAMA OF SOPUTH AFRICA
*********************** Alhamdulillaah ! The lady was granted a reprieve and the s e n- tence set aside most probably due to international kuffaar pres- sure, not due to any concern for the Shariah. This is the lament a- ble condition of Muslims in this age.
THE SHAR'I VIOLATION
Let us now examine the Shariah court's ruling in the light of the Shariah. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) instructed that the introduction of doubts cancel s Hudood. This principle a p-plies to al l Hudood punishments, not only t o Rajm . In the Pa k i- stani case, the following factors established the incidenc e o f doubts beyond any shadow of doubt:
(1 ) The lady resolutely claimed t hat she was legally married to the man.
(2 ) She claimed that her former husband had divorced her
(3 ) She held divorce papers to prove t h at she was divorced. These three factors are more than ample for the introduction of doubt as far as the trial and the Qaadhi a re concerned. As far as the accused are concerned, they did not commit and unlawful act. Hence, assuming that she was caught r ed - handed indulging i n sexual intercourse, it would not b e zina . The court, therefore , had no right to convict her o f zina an d order her to die b y Rajm. According to the Shariah, the validity of divorce is not reliant on witnesses nor on documentary evi d ence. Thus, if a man issues three divorces or one Talaaq Ba a - in to his wife, then she is fully within her Shar'i right to consi der herself divorced. In fact, she is under obligation to separate herself from the man and not a l- low him to approach her. Even if he denies having issued T a- laaq, the Shariah's ruling is “ The woman is like the Qaadhi. ” In other words, in the matter of decreeing Talaaq, just as the Qaadhi executes this function, so too can the woman decree that she is finally divorced from the man if she is convinced that h e had given her three Talaaqs or one Talaaq Baa - in.
If in an Islamic court in Daarul Islam, the Qaadhi rejects the woman's cla i m of Talaaq due to lack of evidence (witnesses) and orders her to return to her husband, she will have to submit to the Qaadhi' s ruling. However, in view of the strong element of doubt in the ruling of the Qaadhi, and the certainty of Talaaq in the woman ' s mind, she will not be sinful if she resorts to some stratagem to escape from the clutches of the man whom she honestly believes is not her husband. When a woman in such a situation claims that she has been divorced, then even if it is not accepted by a court, the element of doubt does exist, and this does not allow the imposition of th e Had d punishment.
F u rthermore, the fact that she claimed that she was married to the man, Sarwar, is a very strong factor for her acquittal. An I s- lamic marriage for its validity does not require any documents or certificates. Only two witnesses will suffice for the validit y o f the nikah. The court had rejected the validity of her nikah, not because there were no witneses to the nikah, but on the ba s is that she was still 'legally' married to another chap. But she pe r- sisted in her claim that this chap was no longer her husband and that she had married another man. Thus, her Nikah with Sarwar was in dispute. A disputed Nikah is terme d A n - Nikaahul Mu k - htalaf Fee h which makes an acquittal mandatory.
Even if her claims could have been disproved with proper Shar'i evidenc e — whi ch was not don e — then too the doubt remained in a very very strong degree of probability, hence a conviction in any crime neces sitatin g Hadd is simply not valid.
According to the Shariah a marriage terme d ‘Shubhatun N i- ka h ' (Doubtful nikah) wards off the sentence o f Hadd . Neither Rajm no r Jald can be imposed if there had transpired such an i n- valid nikah, e.g. nikah without witnesses. So, even if the woman had failed to produce the witnesses to her niklah with Sarwar, th e shubah (doubt ) is a Shar'i verdict which cannot be d i s- missed. It has to be incumbently taken into consideration by the Qaadhi who is compelled by the Shariah to acquit the accused on the basis of this shubah.
The Court also had committed a grievious error in opening up an investigation into her claim of divorce and subsequent ma r- riage. The court was ove r - zealous in striving for a conviction in the way prosecutors do in a western court.
The court had no right to initiate another trial within the trial of zina . If th e man who claimed that he was the husband of this lady, wanted her back believing her to be his wife, he was s u p- posed to have instituted legal proceedings in a separate case. It was improper to have brought up this matter in th e zin a trial . But the Shariah court conducted the proceedings in a manner un b e- fi tting a proper Shariah court. It befitted a western court. This attitude for a Shariah court is most despicable and haraam since Allah Ta'ala and Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had e x- horted and emphasized that the crime should be concealed and as far as possible the culprits be exonerated.
The very fact tha t the court had investigated her claim regarding divorce and marriage is sufficient to prove the element of doubt. If there was n o doubt, the need for an investigation to establish the worth of her claim would not have arisen.
Of crucial importance is the fact that Khushi (the e x - husband a c- cording to Shahida) broght the case of adultery against her. The accuser had not produced four pious male ey e-witnesses to prove that she had committe d zina . In terms of the Shariah the court had to order him to receive a flogging of 80 lashes.
Th e most bizarre aspect of this case was that the Shariah court had convicted the woman o f zin a and had imposed the sentence o f R a j m without the mandatory four ey e- witnesses. The police arrived at her home and simply arrested her and the man whom she claims was her husband. Then they were charged with ad u l- tery. It is difficult to believe that the judge was a Shar'i Qaadhi. He must have been a secular magistrate of a westernized se cular court promoted to the post of a Qaadhi, hence he issued the s t u- pid ruling o f Zinal bil Jabar (rape).
The question of rape does not arise, not in terms of the Shariah nor in terms of western law. A man and woman are living t o- gether willingly Even if they were not married, the question of rape does not feature any where. It appears as if the qaadhi or perhaps the secular magistrate did not understand the meaning o f Zina bil Jabar.
Another significant fact is that according to the technical me a n- ing o f zin a in the Shariah, it (zina) is the perpetration of the man, not of the woman. Thus , Zina bil Jabar is a crime which accor d- ing to the
The hatred for Islam harboured by the kuffaar becomes manifest in their ldence of the Shariah to conclusively proof the valid i t y o f Rajm.